OT: Earth Hour

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bq11btF52sfU1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2014 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
"news13" <newsthirteenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:lhb65e$6sj$25@dont-email.me...

So, the first trick is to lead a less energy expensive lifestyle.

Which unfortunately does not reduce your "supply charge" by one cent,
which
was my complaint in the first place! $500 a year for a meter and drop
wire
is outrageous. Cost for transformers etc are load dependent and should
rightly be covered by usage costs rather than have charges reduce as
usage
goes up! :-(


Costs for transformers are *peak* load dependent, so each consumer should
be paying for transformers in proportion to their contribution to the peak
load.
Click to expand...

Yep, but currently don't.


> Usage charges do not capture peak load very well at all.

We now have smart meters here which CAN measure peak loads accurately.


Time of use metering can better capture peak load, but it would be
difficult to sell a system where consumers don't know how much they'll be
charged for electricity until after the event.
Click to expand...

It is a standard option here already to have time of day charging.


Strictly speaking the transformer cost relates to *projected* peak load,
which complicates allocating the cost even more.
Click to expand...

Not any more.


There may be no simple answer to this one, much less one that people will
actually agree is equitable.
Click to expand...

The answer is already available, naturally those who are being subsidised
never agree with paying more.

Trevor.
 
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bq3ltrFmc9pU1@mid.individual.net...
On 3/04/2014 2:31 AM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:56:04 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 2/04/2014 7:48 PM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:09:17 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 2/04/2014 5:04 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
In some places (France IIRC) they size the supply charge based on the
size of your main fuse

That makes some sense, although it would represent an unfair charge on
someone whose peak load occurred outside peak time.

WTF does consumption time have to do with a size of feed charge?


I take it that you think it's obvious that it has nothing to do with it.
You're mistaken. I'll explain why, if you ask the question again in a
civilised way.

FO, your argument. Make it or shut up.
You started this shite fight you cross posting troll.


To be clear, the reason I'm not providing you with the argument is that
you're not debating in a civilised manner. As things stand, you do not
have a correct understanding of the situation. That's your loss, not mine.
Click to expand...

Yep, size of transformers etc is dependent on the overall peak load, not
just one house. That much is obvious. And the fact that the peak load from
each residence and business contributes to the overall peak load is also
obvious, but currently not taken into account DESPITE the technology being
in place here already.

Trevor.
 
On 3/04/2014 11:07 AM, Trevor wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bq11btF52sfU1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2014 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
"news13" <newsthirteenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:lhb65e$6sj$25@dont-email.me...

So, the first trick is to lead a less energy expensive lifestyle.

Which unfortunately does not reduce your "supply charge" by one cent,
which
was my complaint in the first place! $500 a year for a meter and drop
wire
is outrageous. Cost for transformers etc are load dependent and should
rightly be covered by usage costs rather than have charges reduce as
usage
goes up! :-(


Costs for transformers are *peak* load dependent, so each consumer should
be paying for transformers in proportion to their contribution to the peak
load.

Yep, but currently don't.


Usage charges do not capture peak load very well at all.

We now have smart meters here which CAN measure peak loads accurately.


Time of use metering can better capture peak load, but it would be
difficult to sell a system where consumers don't know how much they'll be
charged for electricity until after the event.

It is a standard option here already to have time of day charging.


Strictly speaking the transformer cost relates to *projected* peak load,
which complicates allocating the cost even more.

Not any more.
Click to expand...

Time of use charging can allow a more equitable allocation of the cost
of providing actual peak load capacity, but until the projected peak
load is realised, there's nothing to measure.

So what do we do? Allocate the cost pro-rata based on actual peak load?
That penalises those who've already installed and their
air-conditioners, and subsidises those who are just about to install them.

There may be no simple answer to this one, much less one that people will
actually agree is equitable.

naturally those who are being subsidised
never agree with paying more.
Click to expand...

That's the truth.

Sylvia.
 
On 3/04/2014 11:46 AM, news13 wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:48:11 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 3/04/2014 2:31 AM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:56:04 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 7:48 PM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:09:17 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 5:04 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

In some places (France IIRC) they size the supply charge based on
the size of your main fuse

That makes some sense, although it would represent an unfair charge
on someone whose peak load occurred outside peak time.

WTF does consumption time have to do with a size of feed charge?


I take it that you think it's obvious that it has nothing to do with
it.
You're mistaken. I'll explain why, if you ask the question again in a
civilised way.

FO, your argument. Make it or shut up.
You started this shite fight you cross posting troll.


To be clear, the reason I'm not providing you with the argument is that
you're not debating in a civilised manner. As things stand, you do not
have a correct understanding of the situation. That's your loss, not
mine.

I can live with that.
Click to expand...

Of course you can. As the saying goes, "ignorance is bliss".

Sylvia.
 
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bq3orpFmuauU1@mid.individual.net...
On 3/04/2014 11:07 AM, Trevor wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bq11btF52sfU1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2014 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
"news13" <newsthirteenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:lhb65e$6sj$25@dont-email.me...

So, the first trick is to lead a less energy expensive lifestyle.

Which unfortunately does not reduce your "supply charge" by one cent,
which
was my complaint in the first place! $500 a year for a meter and drop
wire
is outrageous. Cost for transformers etc are load dependent and should
rightly be covered by usage costs rather than have charges reduce as
usage
goes up! :-(


Costs for transformers are *peak* load dependent, so each consumer
should
be paying for transformers in proportion to their contribution to the
peak
load.

Yep, but currently don't.


Usage charges do not capture peak load very well at all.

We now have smart meters here which CAN measure peak loads accurately.


Time of use metering can better capture peak load, but it would be
difficult to sell a system where consumers don't know how much they'll
be
charged for electricity until after the event.

It is a standard option here already to have time of day charging.


Strictly speaking the transformer cost relates to *projected* peak load,
which complicates allocating the cost even more.

Not any more.

Time of use charging can allow a more equitable allocation of the cost of
providing actual peak load capacity, but until the projected peak load is
realised, there's nothing to measure.

So what do we do? Allocate the cost pro-rata based on actual peak load?
That penalises those who've already installed and their air-conditioners,
and subsidises those who are just about to install them.
Click to expand...

You can use off peak now for hot water heating so there is a precedent
 
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bq3orpFmuauU1@mid.individual.net...
On 3/04/2014 11:07 AM, Trevor wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bq11btF52sfU1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2014 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
"news13" <newsthirteenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:lhb65e$6sj$25@dont-email.me...
So, the first trick is to lead a less energy expensive lifestyle.

Which unfortunately does not reduce your "supply charge" by one cent,
which
was my complaint in the first place! $500 a year for a meter and drop
wire
is outrageous. Cost for transformers etc are load dependent and should
rightly be covered by usage costs rather than have charges reduce as
usage
goes up! :-(


Costs for transformers are *peak* load dependent, so each consumer
should
be paying for transformers in proportion to their contribution to the
peak
load.

Yep, but currently don't.


Usage charges do not capture peak load very well at all.

We now have smart meters here which CAN measure peak loads accurately.


Time of use metering can better capture peak load, but it would be
difficult to sell a system where consumers don't know how much they'll
be
charged for electricity until after the event.

It is a standard option here already to have time of day charging.


Strictly speaking the transformer cost relates to *projected* peak load,
which complicates allocating the cost even more.

Not any more.

Time of use charging can allow a more equitable allocation of the cost of
providing actual peak load capacity, but until the projected peak load is
realised, there's nothing to measure.
Click to expand...

In fact it's now measured in real time using current smart meters, and could
be applied every billing cycle.


So what do we do? Allocate the cost pro-rata based on actual peak load?
That penalises those who've already installed and their air-conditioners,
and subsidises those who are just about to install them.
Click to expand...

Rubbish! Those without air conditioners currently subsidise those who have
them. Those just about to install them would pay more once they install them
and their peak and total load goes up. Currently demand is FALLING though as
more people install solar panels (and heavily subsidised by those without
them! :-( that is why the private electricity companies are increasing the
supply charge at an astronomical rate as I originally stated. As usual
single people are the hardest hit :-(

Trevor.
 
"news13" <newsthirteenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:lhiav7$vqq$5@dont-email.me...
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 11:01:50 +1100, Trevor wrote:
"news13" <newsthirteenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:lhehol$sbm$3@dont-email.me...
So, the first trick is to lead a less energy expensive lifestyle.

Which unfortunately does not reduce your "supply charge" by one cent,
which was my complaint in the first place! $500 a year for a meter and
drop wire is outrageous.

Who are you with?
Now with Origin and it is $280p.a.

You do realise that depends on where you live right?

So you're with Origin and in the inner city and pay more?
Click to expand...

Wrong on both counts. I wish I could pay $280 like you, that's why I'm upset
I can't!
(that's about what I paid last year until it went up 58% this year :-(

Trevor.
 
"Dechucka" <Dechucka_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k62dnQ7t5OE4LqHOnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bq3orpFmuauU1@mid.individual.net...
On 3/04/2014 11:07 AM, Trevor wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bq11btF52sfU1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2014 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
"news13" <newsthirteenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:lhb65e$6sj$25@dont-email.me...

So, the first trick is to lead a less energy expensive lifestyle.

Which unfortunately does not reduce your "supply charge" by one cent,
which
was my complaint in the first place! $500 a year for a meter and drop
wire
is outrageous. Cost for transformers etc are load dependent and should
rightly be covered by usage costs rather than have charges reduce as
usage
goes up! :-(


Costs for transformers are *peak* load dependent, so each consumer
should
be paying for transformers in proportion to their contribution to the
peak
load.

Yep, but currently don't.


Usage charges do not capture peak load very well at all.

We now have smart meters here which CAN measure peak loads accurately.


Time of use metering can better capture peak load, but it would be
difficult to sell a system where consumers don't know how much they'll
be
charged for electricity until after the event.

It is a standard option here already to have time of day charging.


Strictly speaking the transformer cost relates to *projected* peak
load,
which complicates allocating the cost even more.

Not any more.

Time of use charging can allow a more equitable allocation of the cost of
providing actual peak load capacity, but until the projected peak load is
realised, there's nothing to measure.

So what do we do? Allocate the cost pro-rata based on actual peak load?
That penalises those who've already installed and their air-conditioners,
and subsidises those who are just about to install them.

You can use off peak now for hot water heating so there is a precedent
Click to expand...

Everyone in Melbourne with a smart meter can elect to have time of day
charging for ALL usage now (cost is higher during peak hours, lower during
off peak than if you have a flat charge). That does not affect the current
HUGE cost of "supply charges" though which vary depending on where you live,
despite all (or almost all) the electricity coming from the same place. It's
simply how they divided up the network among the private operators because
the current governments admit they are too incompetent to supply essential
services as previous governments had done for the last century :-(

Trevor.
 
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:03:44 +1100, Trevor wrote:

"news13" <newsthirteenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:lhiav7$vqq$5@dont-email.me...
Click to expand...

You do realise that depends on where you live right?

So you're with Origin and in the inner city and pay more?

Wrong on both counts. I wish I could pay $280 like you, that's why I'm
upset I can't!
(that's about what I paid last year until it went up 58% this year :-(
Click to expand...

Oh shit, we're probably going to be shafted too. Can not see origin
letting that go past.
Just got a PR puff piece from origin that says bugger all.
 
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 11:47:43 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 3/04/2014 11:46 AM, news13 wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:48:11 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 3/04/2014 2:31 AM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:56:04 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 7:48 PM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:09:17 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 5:04 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

In some places (France IIRC) they size the supply charge based on
the size of your main fuse

That makes some sense, although it would represent an unfair
charge on someone whose peak load occurred outside peak time.

WTF does consumption time have to do with a size of feed charge?


I take it that you think it's obvious that it has nothing to do with
it.
You're mistaken. I'll explain why, if you ask the question again in
a civilised way.

FO, your argument. Make it or shut up.
You started this shite fight you cross posting troll.


To be clear, the reason I'm not providing you with the argument is
that you're not debating in a civilised manner. As things stand, you
do not have a correct understanding of the situation. That's your
loss, not mine.

I can live with that.


Of course you can. As the saying goes, "ignorance is bliss".
Click to expand...

FUD. lol.
Sylvia.
Click to expand...
 
On 3/04/2014 2:58 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bq3orpFmuauU1@mid.individual.net...
On 3/04/2014 11:07 AM, Trevor wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bq11btF52sfU1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2014 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
"news13" <newsthirteenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:lhb65e$6sj$25@dont-email.me...
So, the first trick is to lead a less energy expensive lifestyle.

Which unfortunately does not reduce your "supply charge" by one cent,
which
was my complaint in the first place! $500 a year for a meter and drop
wire
is outrageous. Cost for transformers etc are load dependent and should
rightly be covered by usage costs rather than have charges reduce as
usage
goes up! :-(


Costs for transformers are *peak* load dependent, so each consumer
should
be paying for transformers in proportion to their contribution to the
peak
load.

Yep, but currently don't.


Usage charges do not capture peak load very well at all.

We now have smart meters here which CAN measure peak loads accurately.


Time of use metering can better capture peak load, but it would be
difficult to sell a system where consumers don't know how much they'll
be
charged for electricity until after the event.

It is a standard option here already to have time of day charging.


Strictly speaking the transformer cost relates to *projected* peak load,
which complicates allocating the cost even more.

Not any more.

Time of use charging can allow a more equitable allocation of the cost of
providing actual peak load capacity, but until the projected peak load is
realised, there's nothing to measure.

In fact it's now measured in real time using current smart meters, and could
be applied every billing cycle.


So what do we do? Allocate the cost pro-rata based on actual peak load?
That penalises those who've already installed and their air-conditioners,
and subsidises those who are just about to install them.


Rubbish! Those without air conditioners currently subsidise those who have
them. Those just about to install them would pay more once they install them
and their peak and total load goes up. Currently demand is FALLING though as
more people install solar panels (and heavily subsidised by those without
them! :-( that is why the private electricity companies are increasing the
supply charge at an astronomical rate as I originally stated. As usual
single people are the hardest hit :-(
Click to expand...

It's certainly true that with the present charging regime, those without
air-conditioners subsidise those with. We've discussed possible ways of
correctly, or at least better, allocating the cost of the capacity that
actually gets used.

However, there exists unused peak capacity. It's there to cope with a
possible excursion above the previous all-time peak. I'll discuss the
ramifications of PV on that below. In such an event, without the extra
capacity, there would be power cuts. Typically, those power cuts would
occur during a heatwave.

So the problem lies in how to allocate the cost of that extra capacity.
Since no one is using it, the cost cannot be allocated on the basis of
consumption. So how?

PVs may well be resulting in a reduction in most peak loads, but heat
waves do not always coincide with bright sunshine. Sometimes the sky is,
if not actually overcast, at least hazy, during a heat wave. In such
situations, the PVs may not contribute much. The total capacity needs to
be able to cope with such cases.

Sylvia.
 
"Trevor" <trevor@home.net> wrote in message
news:lhim86$95u$1@speranza.aioe.org...
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bq3orpFmuauU1@mid.individual.net...
On 3/04/2014 11:07 AM, Trevor wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bq11btF52sfU1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2014 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
"news13" <newsthirteenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:lhb65e$6sj$25@dont-email.me...
So, the first trick is to lead a less energy expensive lifestyle.

Which unfortunately does not reduce your "supply charge" by one cent,
which
was my complaint in the first place! $500 a year for a meter and drop
wire
is outrageous. Cost for transformers etc are load dependent and should
rightly be covered by usage costs rather than have charges reduce as
usage
goes up! :-(


Costs for transformers are *peak* load dependent, so each consumer
should
be paying for transformers in proportion to their contribution to the
peak
load.

Yep, but currently don't.


Usage charges do not capture peak load very well at all.

We now have smart meters here which CAN measure peak loads accurately.


Time of use metering can better capture peak load, but it would be
difficult to sell a system where consumers don't know how much they'll
be
charged for electricity until after the event.

It is a standard option here already to have time of day charging.


Strictly speaking the transformer cost relates to *projected* peak
load,
which complicates allocating the cost even more.

Not any more.

Time of use charging can allow a more equitable allocation of the cost of
providing actual peak load capacity, but until the projected peak load is
realised, there's nothing to measure.

In fact it's now measured in real time using current smart meters, and
could be applied every billing cycle.


So what do we do? Allocate the cost pro-rata based on actual peak load?
That penalises those who've already installed and their air-conditioners,
and subsidises those who are just about to install them.


Rubbish! Those without air conditioners currently subsidise those who have
them. Those just about to install them would pay more once they install
them and their peak and total load goes up. Currently demand is FALLING
though as more people install solar panels (and heavily subsidised by
those without them! :-( that is why the private electricity companies are
increasing the supply charge at an astronomical rate as I originally
stated. As usual single people are the hardest hit :-(
Click to expand...

get a wife trev
 
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bq4ic0Frn9iU1@mid.individual.net...
So, the first trick is to lead a less energy expensive lifestyle.

Which unfortunately does not reduce your "supply charge" by one cent,
which
was my complaint in the first place! $500 a year for a meter and drop
wire
is outrageous. Cost for transformers etc are load dependent and
should
rightly be covered by usage costs rather than have charges reduce as
usage
goes up! :-(


Costs for transformers are *peak* load dependent, so each consumer
should
be paying for transformers in proportion to their contribution to the
peak
load.

Yep, but currently don't.


Usage charges do not capture peak load very well at all.

We now have smart meters here which CAN measure peak loads accurately.


Time of use metering can better capture peak load, but it would be
difficult to sell a system where consumers don't know how much they'll
be
charged for electricity until after the event.

It is a standard option here already to have time of day charging.


Strictly speaking the transformer cost relates to *projected* peak
load,
which complicates allocating the cost even more.

Not any more.

Time of use charging can allow a more equitable allocation of the cost
of
providing actual peak load capacity, but until the projected peak load
is
realised, there's nothing to measure.

In fact it's now measured in real time using current smart meters, and
could
be applied every billing cycle.


So what do we do? Allocate the cost pro-rata based on actual peak load?
That penalises those who've already installed and their
air-conditioners,
and subsidises those who are just about to install them.


Rubbish! Those without air conditioners currently subsidise those who
have
them. Those just about to install them would pay more once they install
them
and their peak and total load goes up. Currently demand is FALLING though
as
more people install solar panels (and heavily subsidised by those without
them! :-( that is why the private electricity companies are increasing
the
supply charge at an astronomical rate as I originally stated. As usual
single people are the hardest hit :-(

It's certainly true that with the present charging regime, those without
air-conditioners subsidise those with. We've discussed possible ways of
correctly, or at least better, allocating the cost of the capacity that
actually gets used.

However, there exists unused peak capacity. It's there to cope with a
possible excursion above the previous all-time peak. I'll discuss the
ramifications of PV on that below. In such an event, without the extra
capacity, there would be power cuts. Typically, those power cuts would
occur during a heatwave.
Click to expand...

And obviously not caused by those without air-con, and reduced by the fact
that the proliferation of solar panels will be producing significant
capacity during a heat wave.


So the problem lies in how to allocate the cost of that extra capacity.
Since no one is using it, the cost cannot be allocated on the basis of
consumption. So how?
Click to expand...

Easily, simply charge on the basis of each users peak demand for the
preceding year. Easily done with current smart meters. My bill already shows
my average usage for the past year, simply include peak usage to the chart,
and bill.
Not that it will ever be done, those in charge of such things are well off,
and are happy to be subsidised by the poorer members of the community. Just
as they continually push for more tax cuts for the rich, offset by increased
flat taxes on the poor. And are accomodated by wealthy politicians! :-(


PVs may well be resulting in a reduction in most peak loads, but heat
waves do not always coincide with bright sunshine. Sometimes the sky is,
if not actually overcast, at least hazy, during a heat wave. In such
situations, the PVs may not contribute much. The total capacity needs to
be able to cope with such cases.
Click to expand...

Actually the UV collected by the solar panels will still generate
considerable output when hazy, and once again you simply point out that
those with air-con need to pay for their energy requirements, NOT those
without.

Trevor.
 
"Dechucka" <Dechucka_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZO2dnctMi5z4ZKDOnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"Trevor" <trevor@home.net> wrote in message
news:lhim86$95u$1@speranza.aioe.org...
As usual single people are the hardest hit :-(

get a wife trev
Click to expand...

Geez I'm not that desperate! :)

Trevor.
 
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 3/04/2014 11:46 AM, news13 wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:48:11 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 3/04/2014 2:31 AM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:56:04 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 7:48 PM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:09:17 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 5:04 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

In some places (France IIRC) they size the supply charge based on
the size of your main fuse

That makes some sense, although it would represent an unfair charge
on someone whose peak load occurred outside peak time.

WTF does consumption time have to do with a size of feed charge?


I take it that you think it's obvious that it has nothing to do with
it.
You're mistaken. I'll explain why, if you ask the question again in a
civilised way.

FO, your argument. Make it or shut up.
You started this shite fight you cross posting troll.


To be clear, the reason I'm not providing you with the argument is that
you're not debating in a civilised manner. As things stand, you do not
have a correct understanding of the situation. That's your loss, not
mine.

I can live with that.


Of course you can. As the saying goes, "ignorance is bliss".

Sylvia.
Why is everyones posts coming up twice?
Click to expand...
 
On 27/06/2016 3:16 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 3/04/2014 11:46 AM, news13 wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:48:11 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 3/04/2014 2:31 AM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:56:04 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 7:48 PM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:09:17 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 5:04 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

In some places (France IIRC) they size the supply charge based on
the size of your main fuse

That makes some sense, although it would represent an unfair charge
on someone whose peak load occurred outside peak time.

WTF does consumption time have to do with a size of feed charge?


I take it that you think it's obvious that it has nothing to do with
it.
You're mistaken. I'll explain why, if you ask the question again in a
civilised way.

FO, your argument. Make it or shut up.
You started this shite fight you cross posting troll.


To be clear, the reason I'm not providing you with the argument is that
you're not debating in a civilised manner. As things stand, you do not
have a correct understanding of the situation. That's your loss, not
mine.

I can live with that.


Of course you can. As the saying goes, "ignorance is bliss".

Sylvia.
Why is everyones posts coming up twice?
Click to expand...

Fault at your end I suspect. They aren't coming up twice on my system.

--

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi
 
On 27-June-2016 4:34 PM, Xeno wrote:
On 27/06/2016 3:16 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 3/04/2014 11:46 AM, news13 wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:48:11 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 3/04/2014 2:31 AM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:56:04 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 7:48 PM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:09:17 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 5:04 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

In some places (France IIRC) they size the supply charge
based on
the size of your main fuse

That makes some sense, although it would represent an unfair
charge
on someone whose peak load occurred outside peak time.

WTF does consumption time have to do with a size of feed charge?


I take it that you think it's obvious that it has nothing to do
with
it.
You're mistaken. I'll explain why, if you ask the question again
in a
civilised way.

FO, your argument. Make it or shut up.
You started this shite fight you cross posting troll.


To be clear, the reason I'm not providing you with the argument is
that
you're not debating in a civilised manner. As things stand, you do
not
have a correct understanding of the situation. That's your loss, not
mine.

I can live with that.


Of course you can. As the saying goes, "ignorance is bliss".

Sylvia.
Why is everyones posts coming up twice?

Fault at your end I suspect. They aren't coming up twice on my system.
Click to expand...

ditto


--
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/
http://www.australianlibertyalliance.org.au/
 
Xeno wrote:
On 27/06/2016 3:16 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 3/04/2014 11:46 AM, news13 wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:48:11 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 3/04/2014 2:31 AM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:56:04 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 7:48 PM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:09:17 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 5:04 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

In some places (France IIRC) they size the supply charge based on
the size of your main fuse

That makes some sense, although it would represent an unfair
charge
on someone whose peak load occurred outside peak time.

WTF does consumption time have to do with a size of feed charge?


I take it that you think it's obvious that it has nothing to do with
it.
You're mistaken. I'll explain why, if you ask the question again
in a
civilised way.

FO, your argument. Make it or shut up.
You started this shite fight you cross posting troll.


To be clear, the reason I'm not providing you with the argument is
that
you're not debating in a civilised manner. As things stand, you do not
have a correct understanding of the situation. That's your loss, not
mine.

I can live with that.


Of course you can. As the saying goes, "ignorance is bliss".

Sylvia.
Why is everyones posts coming up twice?

Fault at your end I suspect. They aren't coming up twice on my system.

I have done it again ,answering two year old posts.
Click to expand...
 
On 27/06/2016 6:11 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Xeno wrote:
On 27/06/2016 3:16 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 3/04/2014 11:46 AM, news13 wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:48:11 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 3/04/2014 2:31 AM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:56:04 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 7:48 PM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:09:17 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 5:04 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

In some places (France IIRC) they size the supply charge
based on
the size of your main fuse

That makes some sense, although it would represent an unfair
charge
on someone whose peak load occurred outside peak time.

WTF does consumption time have to do with a size of feed charge?


I take it that you think it's obvious that it has nothing to do
with
it.
You're mistaken. I'll explain why, if you ask the question again
in a
civilised way.

FO, your argument. Make it or shut up.
You started this shite fight you cross posting troll.


To be clear, the reason I'm not providing you with the argument is
that
you're not debating in a civilised manner. As things stand, you do
not
have a correct understanding of the situation. That's your loss, not
mine.

I can live with that.


Of course you can. As the saying goes, "ignorance is bliss".

Sylvia.
Why is everyones posts coming up twice?

Fault at your end I suspect. They aren't coming up twice on my system.

I have done it again ,answering two year old posts.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get too fussed over it if I were you. Current topics aren't
exactly anything to get excited over.

--

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi
 
On 27/06/2016 3:16 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 3/04/2014 11:46 AM, news13 wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:48:11 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 3/04/2014 2:31 AM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:56:04 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 7:48 PM, news13 wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:09:17 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/04/2014 5:04 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

In some places (France IIRC) they size the supply charge based on
the size of your main fuse

That makes some sense, although it would represent an unfair charge
on someone whose peak load occurred outside peak time.

WTF does consumption time have to do with a size of feed charge?


I take it that you think it's obvious that it has nothing to do with
it.
You're mistaken. I'll explain why, if you ask the question again in a
civilised way.

FO, your argument. Make it or shut up.
You started this shite fight you cross posting troll.


To be clear, the reason I'm not providing you with the argument is that
you're not debating in a civilised manner. As things stand, you do not
have a correct understanding of the situation. That's your loss, not
mine.

I can live with that.


Of course you can. As the saying goes, "ignorance is bliss".

Sylvia.
Why is everyones posts coming up twice?
Click to expand...

**Why are you responding to TWO YEAR OLD posts?

Go take your meds.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top